* Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Following are the numbers. Disabling HT gives improvement in some cases.
I see similar improvement with this patch as removing the condition ISo HT disabling slows down the 2DB instance by -22%, while core-sched
earlier mentioned. So that's not needed. I also included the patch for the
priority fix. For 2 DB instances, HT disabling stands at -22% for 32 users
(from earlier emails).
1 DB instance
users baseline %idle core_sched %idle
16ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 84ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -4.9% 84
24ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 76ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -6.7% 75
32ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 69ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -2.4% 69
2 DB instance
users baseline %idle core_sched %idle
16ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 66ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -19.5% 69
24ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 54ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -9.8% 57
32ÂÂÂÂ 1ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 42ÂÂÂÂÂÂ -27.2%ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 48
slows it down by -27.2%?
Would it be possible to see all the results in two larger tables (1 DB
instance and 2 DB instance) so that we can compare the performance of the
3 kernel variants with each other:
- "vanilla +HT": Hyperthreading enabled, vanilla scheduler
- "vanilla -HT": Hyperthreading disabled, vanilla scheduler
- "core_sched": Hyperthreading enabled, core-scheduling enabled
?
Thanks,
Ingo